Sorry, wrong link.http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section08.htm#Figure 8.6.2.1-1http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2011-217352.pdfhttp://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdfI'm being flippant when I talk about the passengers/crew wigging out, but this is something crews on nuclear subs have to be carefully screened for. The British still do hot bunking - it's just the junior crew who have to suffer through it. About 1/3 of submariners are discharged for psychological reasons after their first tour. It may be lower (I didn't check the figures) but it's still a terrible psychological toll. Put your average hipster in there and you may find a gibbering mess coming out.Assuming 18 people can use the same communal space as 6, then 15m^3 looks possible.
Sorry, wrong link.http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section08.htm#Figure 8.6.2.1-1http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2011-217352.pdfhttp://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdfAssuming 18 people can use the same communal space as 6, then 15m^3 looks possible.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 02/16/2016 10:56 amSorry, wrong link.http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section08.htm#Figure 8.6.2.1-1http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2011-217352.pdfhttp://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdfAssuming 18 people can use the same communal space as 6, then 15m^3 looks possible.Much more helpful but quite disturbing. I note 2 things.5 m^3 is the very low end of the range for missions about 3 months.But more worryingly there is a sense in the 2 reports that this is just a placeholder as there has simply been been no research in this area to find out what the minimum really is.
I suspect the average hipster is already a gibbering mess. Putting on in a spaceship will just make him/her gibberouser.
I never had to hot bunk on the sub I was on, but some of the crew did. This was in the mid to late 1970's, in an FBM submarine that was large for its day. I worked and bunked in the missile compartment, the largest space on the boat, so my conditions were better than most. But it's true that even there, after a few weeks of submerged patrol, some people did start to wig out, and there were some major confrontations that developed over the most trivial triggering incidents.
Sorry, wrong link.http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section08.htm#Figure 8.6.2.1-1http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2011-217352.pdfhttp://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdf
Quote from: Lampyridae on 02/16/2016 10:56 amSorry, wrong link.http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section08.htm#Figure 8.6.2.1-1http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2011-217352.pdfhttp://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdfMuch better. The bottom line of those 2 reports seems to be that that they are recommending just the personal space be somewhere between 7-8 m^3. ...
Quote from: Lampyridae on 02/16/2016 10:56 amSorry, wrong link.http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section08.htm#Figure 8.6.2.1-1http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2011-217352.pdfhttp://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdfMuch better. The bottom line of those 2 reports seems to be that that they are recommending just the personal space be somewhere between 7-8 m^3. Unless this MCT comes with a big blow up section that's going to have a pretty sizeable impact on vehicle size.
That's an order of magnitude greater duration than the MCT's 3 month trip. Also, everything seems quite hand-wavy as to why /exactly/ that much space is needed.
You'll have fewer crew for the return journey. Thems the rules or this whole thing doesn't work.
Strong guarantees of a round-trip ticket are necessary to get a million people to pay $500k to go to Mars.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 02/16/2016 11:49 pmQuote from: Lampyridae on 02/16/2016 10:56 amSorry, wrong link.http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section08.htm#Figure 8.6.2.1-1http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2011-217352.pdfhttp://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdfMuch better. The bottom line of those 2 reports seems to be that that they are recommending just the personal space be somewhere between 7-8 m^3. ......it should be noted that the last report (2015) is referencing ~5m^3 of person space for missions 912 days in duration. That's an order of magnitude greater duration than the MCT's 3 month trip. Also, everything seems quite hand-wavy as to why /exactly/ that much space is needed.In the 2011 report, most of those problems seem better mitigated by things other than simply having more per-person volume. For instance, sending always two or more MCTs at once (with margin for both) would provide full backup capability without adding extra space required just for backup use. Customizability is something that is also not volume-dependent. Having sufficient mental tasks can be accomplished by providing stimulating training during the transit, including perhaps group projects to prepare for life on Mars. VR headsets could help with mental stimulation, as well as having the entire Netflix catalogue available.Proper layout of the cabin itself as well as good sleep schedule management (with some freedom to change sleep shift if you want) could help relieve congestion in common areas without needing any more volume per person....again, those reports don't at all seem definitive about what exactly is the minimum per-passenger space needed for a short 90-100 day transit....and remember also that for the same mass, allocating less volume will improve the radiation protection automatically.
90 day transit is insanely expensive in propellant, and while it might be possible to do it from LEO at huge cost in propellant. But the longest leg of the journey is what you need to plan around and that is likely to be the Earth return leg.Do your remember the discussion we had back on page 39 & 40 when we found that just 100 days Earth return launches from Mars surface would require 8.8 km/s DeltaV and significant aero-braking or propulsive capture at Earth.
Transit times of 120-180 days for Earth return are the range that's actually achievable.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2016 05:34 amYou'll have fewer crew for the return journey. Thems the rules or this whole thing doesn't work.Why even bother returning the vehicles? We could just scale up Mars One by a factor of 30?"But it's necessary for the price to drop to $500k..."Strong guarantees of a round-trip ticket are necessary to get a million people to pay $500k to go to Mars.
Quote from: Impaler on 02/17/2016 05:16 am90 day transit is insanely expensive in propellant, and while it might be possible to do it from LEO at huge cost in propellant. But the longest leg of the journey is what you need to plan around and that is likely to be the Earth return leg.Do your remember the discussion we had back on page 39 & 40 when we found that just 100 days Earth return launches from Mars surface would require 8.8 km/s DeltaV and significant aero-braking or propulsive capture at Earth.That's huge emphasizing the need to make ECLSS closed loop as much as possible. QuoteTransit times of 120-180 days for Earth return are the range that's actually achievable.These are the figures I was thinking about. Do you happen to have the Delta V to give a 100 day to Mars trip? That also hint SX might like to make it an uncrewed return, but then how do you get the crew back for the next one?